The Grapevine (OFF TOPIC CHAT) Part II

Tar.Aldarion · 20-01-2017 3:52pm

Yeah it's not the best but I find it fairly essential for these kind of things unfortunately.

Zombienosh · 23-01-2017 11:40am

Yeah I deleted facebook for a while but went back for the groups/events and interacting with business pages.

henryporter · 23-01-2017 6:26pm

Zombienosh wrote: »

Yeah I deleted facebook for a while but went back for the groups/events and interacting with business pages.

That's how insidious FB is - they keep reeling you back in!

Mr.Saturn · 17-05-2017 6:21pm

Draught Guinness is finally vegan-friendly, lads.

Thank you for your most recent email regarding Guinness. It is always good to hear from our loyal Guinness consumers. We are delighted to receive any feedback on our products and communications, as it keeps us in touch with the people that matter.

Innovation is at the heart of our brewing credentials. As one of the most progressive breweries in the world, our talented brewers have introduced a new filtration process which has removed the use of isinglass as a means of filtration.

All Guinness Draught produced in keg format at St. James’s Gate Brewery and served in pubs, bars and restaurants around the world, is brewed without using isinglass to filter the beer and vegans can now enjoy a pint of Guinness.

We want to reassure you that the recipe for Guinness and taste has not changed. Isinglass is not an ingredient and had no impact on the taste of Guinness. It was purely used a means of clarifying the beer. It’s the same great pint of Guinness it’s always been, loved by millions of people around the world.

Production and distribution has also commenced on the bottle and can formats of Guinness Draught. It will take some time to reach the full scale distribution of these formats, but this is expected by the end of 2017.

Our advice is to check https://www.guinness.com/en-gb/frequently-asked-questions/ for information about Guinness produced with our new filtration system.

We thank you for your interest in our brand and we look forward to hearing from you again in the future.

From what I've read, it's been 2 years since they first announced the move, but they've now got the new system in place, so it's all good.

henryporter · 19-05-2017 10:29am

Mr.Saturn wrote: »

Draught Guinness is finally vegan-friendly, lads.

From what I've read, it's been 2 years since they first announced the move, but they've now got the new system in place, so it's all good.

I've been holding off now since I heard the news a couple of weeks ago - waiting for the old stocks to run out in the local, but soon..... :-)

Zombienosh · 14-01-2018 9:36am

Jeez.... Its quiet. How's everyone?

loveisdivine · 13-02-2018 4:17pm

I just made the mistake of reading that thread in the farming forum about us extremist vegans. It was a really depressing read. Every single 'bingo' you could imagine. I know out of everyone on the planet, farmers are gonna be the last ones to change their views but it's still sad to read.

gozunda · 14-02-2018 6:14pm

loveisdivine wrote: »

I just made the mistake of reading that thread in the farming forum about us extremist vegans. It was a really depressing read. Every single 'bingo' you could imagine. I know out of everyone on the planet, farmers are gonna be the last ones to change their views but it's still sad to read.

I'm sorry you have taken the discussion that way. But the majority of posts there quite clearly refer to 'extreme' vegans responsible for sending death threats and etc to dairy farmers and their families and I am sure that is not in any way reflective of any of the regular vegans on here.

Yes there may be difference of opinion regarding views of farming - that is expected. However farmers - animal, arable and horticultural undertake a very difficult job at the best of times and I can say this is from first hand experience. Writing them all off as having outdated views is a somewhat naive view imo.

Dakota Dan · 17-02-2018 7:16pm

loveisdivine wrote: »

I just made the mistake of reading that thread in the farming forum about us extremist vegans. It was a really depressing read. Every single 'bingo' you could imagine. I know out of everyone on the planet, farmers are gonna be the last ones to change their views but it's still sad to read.

Sure what would us farmers know about farming?

18-02-2018 12:11am

Dakota Dan wrote: »

Sure what would us farmers know about farming?

Weird thing to say.

Poor you is it ?

Thankfully regardless of what you know there’ll be less of you in the not too distant future.

loveisdivine · 19-02-2018 11:07am

Dakota Dan wrote: »

Sure what would us farmers know about farming?

The gleeful posts about plants having feelings tells me some of you might not know that much.

We also had classics such as -

" but worms/mice die to grow your vegetables" It's about REDUCING suffering, not pretending we can eliminate it entirely from the planet.

" the cow stands for the bull" so that definitely means she's consented to being a milk machine for humans.

"Vegans aren't living in the real world" - Erm, hello, I'm here living in the real world just like you, only I've reduced my contribution to animal suffering immensely.

"African families have a few chickens and a cow" - So that means it's ok for the rest of the world to continue with unsustainable and cruel factory farming?

" How do you know someone's a vegan? Don't worry they'll tell you" From the non vegans that started a thread about vegans ???

All this nonsense being spouted is nothing new, we've heard it all before and we've got answers for all of it too.

http://yourveganfallacyis.com/en

gozunda · 22-02-2018 12:26am

loveisdivine wrote: »

The gleeful posts about plants having feelings tells me some of you might not know that much.

We also had classics such as -

" but worms/mice die to grow your vegetables" It's about REDUCING suffering, not pretending we can eliminate it entirely from the planet.

" the cow stands for the bull" so that definitely means she's consented to being a milk machine for humans.

"Vegans aren't living in the real world" - Erm, hello, I'm here living in the real world just like you, only I've reduced my contribution to animal suffering immensely.

"African families have a few chickens and a cow" - So that means it's ok for the rest of the world to continue with unsustainable and cruel factory farming?

" How do you know someone's a vegan? Don't worry they'll tell you" From the non vegans that started a thread about vegans ???

All this nonsense being spouted is nothing new, we've heard it all before and we've got answers for all of it too.

http://yourveganfallacyis.com/en

And for each of the 'nonsense' examples listed above I have heard similar classic nonsense 'answers' from vegan sources - so no no-one wins there.

It is unfortunate that the like of Carbstrong is using mindgames and hysterics to promote veganism which is doing more harm than good imo.

For example most farming in Ireland is not 'factory type farming'. The examples and data to promote the more extreme forms of veganism are frequently those seen in the US etc.

Applying words such as 'rape to AI is illogical at best. The reasoning given is that as cows can't consent- it is 'rape'. Can any animal wild, domestic or otherwise consent to medical help or intervention? If a cow has other gynecological problems not involving AI and intervention is required to 'reduce suffering' - is that 'rape' Do we leave animals die just because they cant consent to any medical intervention? How would that reduce suffering?

The no matter what form of agriculture we adopt - animals are going to die in their hundreds of thousands- whether they are wild animals or birds displaced and killed through deforestation for or by arable farming or the farming of livestock directly. The method chosen doesn't help to reduce suffering - it simply shifts the goalposts. Animals die on our roads, animals die by our industrial processes. Animals die because of our waste and our need for houses and development. We can argue till the end if time about which one causes most 'suffering' but that does not change the basic fact that the pure weight of humans on this planet by itself is Armageddon to all the other animals.

That does not mean we should not try and adopt change. But even a small number of extremists attacking farmers and issuing death threats is going to produce a backlash. Gleeful comments such as one above "thankfully regardless of what you know there’ll be less of you in the not too distant future." are everybit as bad as those you exemplified.

And where does all that get us? Therin lies the real issue of the present discussion

loveisdivine · 22-02-2018 10:52am

gozunda wrote: »

And for each of the 'nonsense' examples listed above I have heard similar classic nonsense 'answers' from vegan sources - so no no-one wins there.

It is unfortunate that the like of Carbstrong is using mindgames and hysterics to promote veganism which is doing more harm than good imo.

For example most farming in Ireland is not 'factory type farming'. The examples and data to promote the more extreme forms of veganism are frequently those seen in the US etc.

Applying words such as 'rape to AI is illogical at best. The reasoning given is that as cows can't consent- it is 'rape'. Can any animal wild, domestic or otherwise consent to medical help or intervention? If a cow has other gynecological problems not involving AI and intervention is required to 'reduce suffering' - is that 'rape' Do we leave animals die just because they cant consent to any medical intervention? How would that reduce suffering?

The no matter what form of agriculture we adopt - animals are going to die in their hundreds of thousands- whether they are wild animals or birds displaced and killed through deforestation for or by arable farming or the farming of livestock directly. The method chosen doesn't help to reduce suffering - it simply shifts the goalposts. Animals die on our roads, animals die by our industrial processes. Animals die because of our waste and our need for houses and development. We can argue till the end if time about which one causes most 'suffering' but that does not change the basic fact that the pure weight of humans on this planet by itself is Armageddon to all the other animals.

That does not mean we should not try and adopt change. But even a small number of extremists attacking farmers and issuing death threats is going to produce a backlash. Gleeful comments such as one above "thankfully regardless of what you know there’ll be less of you in the not too distant future." are everybit as bad as those you exemplified.

And where does all that get us? Therin lies the real issue of the present discussion

When talking about consent, I think it's important to differentiate between taking action for your own benefit (like impregnating so you can take her milk) and taking action solely for the purpose of reducing the animals suffering (pain relief, treatment of disease, euthanasia etc)

You really can't equate providing medical treatment so an animal can live (in peace, free from human exploitation I might add) to planned insemination via bull or AI so you can profit from her. It's not remotely the same thing.

Yes, animals die to produce vegan food, like vegetables etc. But, as the link I posted explains -

Crop fields do indeed disrupt the habitats of wild animals, and wild animals are also killed when harvesting plants. However, this point makes the case for a plant-based diet and not against it, since many more plants are required to produce a measure of animal flesh for food (often as high as 12:1) than are required to produce an equal measure of plants for food (which is obviously 1:1). Because of this, a plant-based diet causes less suffering and death than one that includes animals.
It is pertinent to note that the idea of perfect veganism is a non-vegan one. Such demands for perfection are imposed by critics of veganism, often as a precursor to lambasting vegans for not measuring up to an externally-imposed standard. That said, the actual and applied ethics of veganism are focused on causing the least possible harm to the fewest number of others. It is also noteworthy that the accidental deaths caused by growing and harvesting plants for food are ethically distinct from the intentional deaths caused by breeding and slaughtering animals for food. This is not to say that vegans are not responsible for the deaths they cause, but rather to point out that these deaths do not violate the vegan ethics stated above.

I didn't make the comment you quoted about there being less farmers in the future, so I can't respond to it.

Yes there are some vegan extremists, death threats are "extreme". But the actual death/killing that farmers/meat eaters partake in is not?

I'd also like to see some hard evidence of these death threats. I know that young woman that did the video interview with the BBC lambasting us terrible vegans actually backtracked about a week later, saying that she herself hadn't actually received any death threats, but of course nobody was as quick to splash that over the front pages. Edit to add source - https://www.plantbasednews.org/post/farmer-admits-not-had-specific-death-threats-towards-me

I don't believe I've ever seen Joey Carbstrong being "hysterical" but maybe I've just missed that interview. Either way, it's awfully easy for people to say "Look, those couple of vegans are putting themselves under the spotlight and their views are "extreme" so I can discredit the whole movement and keep using and killing animals for my own benefit"

I see it as an 'easy out'. You want all vegans to be perfect and not saying anything you find offensive and then you'll consider veganism. But of course, conveniently, that will never happen. Everybody shouts extremism, the farmers supposedly getting death threats become the poor victims and the focus is pushed away from the actual victims, the sentient beings that are being used and killed every single day.

gozunda · 22-02-2018 3:39pm

loveisdivine wrote: »

When talking about consent, I think it's important to differentiate between taking action for your own benefit (like impregnating so you can take her milk) and taking action solely for the purpose of reducing the animals suffering (pain relief, treatment of disease, euthanasia etc)

No that has not been the case. One of the principle promoters of the 'rape' argument has been Mr Carbstrong et al. He repeatedly states because there is no 'consent' with what we do with animals then AI is 'rape'. By definition there can be no consent for any interaction we have with animals wild or otherwise - therefore saying that is 'rape' but something similar such as gynecological treatment which may also involve an individual putting their hand up an animals anus or any other treatment without consent is not - is at best disingenuous and a very poor argument imo.

loveisdivine wrote: »

You really can't equate providing medical treatment so an animal can live (in peace, free from human exploitation I might add) to planned insemination via bull or AI so you can profit from her. It's not remotely the same thing.

I did not make an analogy - I struck out the 'rape' argument for what it is - silly illogical and overemotive use of shock language.

loveisdivine wrote: »

Yes, animals die to produce vegan food, like vegetables etc. But, as the link I posted explains

-

No again the reasoning given fails animals in that it gives vegans a get out of jail free card to ignore the damage that all human activities do to other animals.

This is not to say that vegans are not responsible for the deaths they cause, but rather to point out that these deaths do not violate the vegan ethics stated above.

Yes animals are not the problem - humans are. All humans. Ignoring the issue won't make it go away or lessen it.

loveisdivine wrote: »

I didn't make the comment you quoted about there being less farmers in the future, so I can't respond to it.

And yet it remains a prime example of the type of comment thrown at farmers and non vegans - comments which do nothing but encourage further comments and back clapping.

loveisdivine wrote: »

Yes there are some vegan extremists, death threats are "extreme". But the actual death/killing that farmers/meat eaters partake in is not?

I think you will find it was death threats issues by 'extremists'. On the other hand you are labelling all deaths / killing as an 'extreme act.
By that logic therefore any animal which kills another animal (an extreme act) could/should face the penalty or threat of 'death? I also can't quite believe you are by extension equating death threats because such acts are by your definition 'extreme'.

loveisdivine wrote: »

I'd also like to see some hard evidence of these death threats. I know that young woman that did the video interview with the BBC lambasting us terrible vegans actually backtracked about a week later, saying that she herself hadn't actually received any death threats, but of course nobody was as quick to splash that over the front pages.

I believe this issue has been quite well covered in another thread which contains recent links to death threats against farmers by extremist vegans both in Ireland and the UK. Again I find it illogical that on one hand that equate all 'extreme death/killing and yet with the other you question whether such death threats issues by extremist could be true at all.

loveisdivine wrote: »

I don't believe I've ever seen Joey Carbstrong being "hysterical" but maybe I've just missed that interview. Either way, it's awfully easy for people to say "Look, those couple of vegans are putting themselves under the spotlight and their views are "extreme" so I can discredit the whole movement and keep using and killing animals for my own benefit"

But that was not the point made was it? The use of hyperbole and disingenuous argument unfortunately does nothing but encourage the lunatic fringe - ie a subset of individuals who will flock to a cause as a result of evangelical type preachering and by result become radicalised. Unfortunately the death threats would not be a first in the animal rights movement.

loveisdivine wrote: »

I see it as an 'easy out'. You want all vegans to be perfect and not saying anything you find offensive and then you'll consider veganism. But of course, conveniently, that will never happen. Everybody shouts extremism, the farmers supposedly getting death threats become the poor victims and the focus is pushed away from the actual victims, the sentient beings that are being used and killed every single day.

Erh I think you will find you are putting words in my mouth and no I don't 'want all vegans to be perfect'. Changing the topic doesn't help the problem as why veganism is being received negatively by many and why proper discourse is apparently unlikely ....

Tar.Aldarion · 22-02-2018 4:51pm

gozunda wrote: »

No that has not been the case. One of the principle promoters of the 'rape' argument has been Mr Carbstrong et al. He repeatedly states because there is no 'consent' with what we do with animals then AI is 'rape'. By definition there can be no consent for any interaction we have with animals wild or otherwise - therefore saying that is 'rape' but something similar such as gynecological treatment which may also involve an individual putting their hand up an animals anus or any other treatment without consent is not - is at best disingenuous and a very poor argument imo.

Ignoring the use of "rape", it's pretty basic social philosophy that it is ok to do things to others for their benefit (such as doctors helping unconscious or mentally ill people) and not for something against their interest/for your own interest.

No again the reasoning given fails animals in that it gives vegans a get out of jail free card to ignore the damage that all human activities do to other animals.

The whole point of veganism is to accept blame for what humans do and to lessen the impact. People (loud minority aside) are fully away their hurt others by living.

gozunda · 22-02-2018 7:16pm

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Ignoring the use of "rape", it's pretty basic social philosophy that it is ok to do things to others for their benefit (such as doctors helping unconscious or mentally ill people) and not for something against their interest/for your own interest.

Yet it remains that the issue was the use of hyper emotive language ie 'rape' purely to achieve an end regardless of how realistic or logical that language is.

I would disagree that this issue necessarily relates to social philosophy* (defined as the study of questions about (human) social behavior and interpretations of society and social institutions in terms of ethical values rather than empirical relations)

I think it might be more appropriate to consider it with regard to the philosophy of human rights* (which attempts to examine the underlying basis of the concept of human rights and critically looks at its content and justification) - in this case with regard to animals

The whole point of veganism is to accept blame for what humans do and to lessen the impact. People (loud minority aside) are fully away their hurt others by living.

Ok - however what many see / hear is the loud minority claiming moral authority over others and then beating them with it.

I would also argue that it is environmentalism (as a movement) which seeks to primarily mitigate the impacts of all humans and human activities on animals, plants and non-living matter. The issue with some extreme vegan thought is that all the blame is squarely laid at the feet of others with the promise of utopia and a cruelty free world if only the whole world goes vegan.

* Wiki definition

22-02-2018 10:16pm

I don’t understand why people are bothering. It’s clear gozunda doesn’t grasp the point of view of a vegan and some of the comments are quite absurd.

It also seems gozunda could be carrying a battle in here from a different thread.

I’m not having a go at you gozunda but the whole debate seems fairly pointless when coming from your starting position.

Cognitive dissonance could be at play but it’s plain to see you are not very close to understanding what animal lovers understand.

gozunda · 23-02-2018 1:47am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I don’t understand why people are bothering. It’s clear gozunda doesn’t grasp the point of view of a vegan and some of the comments are quite absurd.

It also seems gozunda could be carrying a battle in here from a different thread.

I’m not having a go at you gozunda but the whole debate seems fairly pointless when coming from your starting position.

Cognitive dissonance could be at play but it’s plain to see you are not very close to understanding what animal lovers understand.

Attack the post etc lol? Bar referring to me in the third person - it would be more appropriate to acknowledge an open exchange of views. :rolleyes: But hey whatever you like.

Tbh I for one don't believe that there is one single definitive "point of view of a vegan" or othodoxy - like all beliefs there is an evident continuim of opinions and views.

The ones I have been highlighting clearly appear to have come from a small number of extremists. However not having a go at you either but if you wish to lump everyone together for a more sensationalist angle I can't stop that. And yes there are different types of "animal lovers" out there - some are perhaps more informed and rational than others imo.

23-02-2018 2:56am

As I advised others not to get involved I won’t either.

It would be hard for me to converse with someone that doesn’t see any difference between trying to help a wild animal, like a duck with a broken wing or injured foot, to imprisoning an animal, raping it, torturing it and then killing it.

If someone in ‘real life’ were to convey that to me I would most definitely laugh or back away slowly depending on their size.

Over and out.

gozunda · 23-02-2018 8:14am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

As I advised others not to get involved I won’t either.
It would be hard for me to converse with someone that doesn’t see any difference between trying to help a wild animal, like a duck with a broken wing or injured foot, to imprisoning an animal, raping it, torturing it and then killing it. If someone in ‘real life’ were to convey that to me I would most definitely laugh or back away slowly depending on their size.
Over and out.

Im sorry I do not wish to be flippent in anyway about rape - but 'rape' a 'duck - seriously? The use of that word in such a manner is truely deranged. And yes you are getting involved by commenting on what I have posted and by again saying things I have not said.

I would suggest rereading the post above relating to the illogical and frankly bizarre use of terms such as 'rape' in your statement and how that does more harm than good to any such argument. I can't put it any plainer than that.

Tar.Aldarion · 25-02-2018 12:49pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I don’t understand why people are bothering. It’s clear gozunda doesn’t grasp the point of view of a vegan and some of the comments are quite absurd.

It also seems gozunda could be carrying a battle in here from a different thread.

I’m not having a go at you gozunda but the whole debate seems fairly pointless when coming from your starting position.

Cognitive dissonance could be at play but it’s plain to see you are not very close to understanding what animal lovers understand.

I don't see any problem with chatting to anybody, you know who said they'd never go vegan? Nearly every vegan, including myself. If something such as animal use is so endemic in society it's rather hard to change or have views contrary to the norm without a lot of thought and introspection. Thinking back, I would have a completely different view of animals when I was an omnivore vs vegetarian vs vegan, a lot of it stemmed down to traditional morals instilled by society and because I was a "steakholder" in the use of said animals. It's easier to break away from that when you don't take part in it any more which is why so many vegans that become so for health/environmental reasons (plant-based definitions aside) end up fervently taking part due to animals well-being eventually.

gozunda wrote: »

Yet it remains that the issue was the use of hyper emotive language ie 'rape' purely to achieve an end regardless of how realistic or logical that language is.

I would disagree that this issue necessarily relates to social philosophy* (defined as the study of questions about (human) social behavior and interpretations of society and social institutions in terms of ethical values rather than empirical relations)

I think it might be more appropriate to consider it with regard to the philosophy of human rights* (which attempts to examine the underlying basis of the concept of human rights and critically looks at its content and justification) - in this case with regard to animals

Ok - however what many see / hear is the loud minority claiming moral authority over others and then beating them with it.

I would also argue that it is environmentalism (as a movement) which seeks to primarily mitigate the impacts of all humans and human activities on animals, plants and non-living matter. The issue with some extreme vegan thought is that all the blame is squarely laid at the feet of others with the promise of utopia and a cruelty free world if only the whole world goes vegan.

* Wiki definition

I suppose there are a few reasons people use words like "rape" and some can definitely be for what you say. My point was aside from that there is logical consistency in doing something to a being without it's consent in some case and in some cases this is not deemed acceptable. I avoid any mention of associations with traditionally human-centric words such as rape as it is emotive and derails conversation away from the meaningful points concerning moral agency.

Environmentalism is encompassed in veganism however the opposite is not true. Environmentalism says nothing about torturing animals or hurting them in an environmentally friendly way amongst a cornucopia of different scenarios. However, environmentalism is a vital part of veganism as it maximizes the wellbeing of all of us on the planet. Anybody that lays the blame on others and not themselves also is not taking to heart the whole point of veganism - that we are no better than anybody else, every movement will have anger and outrage however it's never a reflection of the true meaning. I can understand that it is hard to see past that when people are threatening or trying to get a reaction.

seamus · 07-03-2018 11:20am

Is it me or does it seem like the NDC is actually really worried about the anti-dairy trend?

Between the "plant based dairy" ad last year, the press release they had radio stations regurgitate, purporting to be scientific research, and the current set of milk ads, they seem to be laying it on really thick with the "Please drink milk" schtick.

I know non-dairy has started to become popular amongst hipsters, like the non-gluten fad. And tbh if it makes non-dairy more popular and available like it did for gluten free foods, then it matters not a jot whether those drinking it are actually vegan/vegetarian.

But is it really making a severe dent in dairy sales?

07-03-2018 11:47am

I don’t know but a few invested posters will be along soon to tell you how it’s having no impact and it’s only a fad.

Non dairy ‘milk’ is probably bad for you. They’ll be telling you that too.

Tar.Aldarion · 07-03-2018 12:02pm

Have no idea how it is affecting their sales but you can see from just being in the supermarket that everybody from teenagers to the elderly have it in their baskets now and the Tesco ones are always sold out. My office now uses a load of almond milk when before there was none, here is one of the fridges:

One of the biggest milk producers in the US shut down and reopened selling plant based milk. Over there milk sales have been reducing for decades anyway as new drinks in general replaced people drinking milk. I'm sure the figures for here are online, no matter what, even if they are stable or increasing it's beginning to take a lot of sales away from the industry and the trend is worrying for them. There have been a lot of campaign posters by the goveganworld crowd around too.

gozunda · 07-03-2018 12:07pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I don’t know but a few invested posters will be along soon to tell you how it’s having no impact and it’s only a fad.

Non dairy ‘milk’ is probably bad for you. They’ll be telling you that too.

By that view farmers are not the only ones with a 'vested interest' in that issue?

Seriously though - there have been some poor and some ok discussions on these issues and yet you dismiss any exchange of views or debate continuously as negative? Such things are rarely so black and white. There will always be preachers telling others certain things are "bad for you" ...

Though that I suppose you do have a point when you have a poster claiming to be giving their opinion and informing others of the 'facts' as in a recent thread in Diet & Nutrition - when it turns out they were plagiarising someone else's views and opinions from a 'vegan' related website - much of which was shown to be factually incorrect. That really doesnt help either imo.

gozunda · 07-03-2018 12:12pm

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Have no idea how it is affecting their sales but you can see from just being in the supermarket that everybody from teenagers to the elderly have it in their baskets now and the Tesco ones are always sold out. My office now uses a load of almond milk when before there was none, here is one of the fridges:

One of the biggest milk producers in the US shut down and reopened selling plant based milk. Over there milk sales have been reducing for decades anyway as new drinks in general replaced people drinking milk. I'm sure the figures for here are online, no matter what, even if they are stable or increasing it's beginning to take a lot of sales away from the industry and the trend is worrying for them. There have been a lot of campaign posters by the goveganworld crowd around too.

During the recent shortages - Tesco and the other major supermarkets I visited all ran out of ordinary milk and other dairy products . The plant based alternatives were still on the shelves....

I dont believe that any comparison with the US dairy industry is practically comparable to Ireland or even most parts of the rest of the world tbh. The govegan stuff is just pure hype imo and very poorly done.

Tar.Aldarion · 07-03-2018 12:21pm

gozunda wrote: »

During the recent shortages - Tesco and the other major supermarkets I visited all ran out of ordinary milk and other dairy products . The plant based alternatives were still on the shelves....

I dont believe that any comparison with the US dairy industry is practically comparable to Ireland or even most parts of the rest of the world tbh. The govegan stuff is just pure hype imo and very poorly done.

The majority of people still buy dairy milk, even those that buy plantbased buy dairy milk too generally. The only brands that are generally sold out are the Tesco ones as I said, as they cost so little which you may have misunderstood as it's not so clearly written. I've barely been able to buy their unsweetened soy milk for months and it's rather annoying but in a good way I guess. The reason I won't rush to buy them is also that it is longlife, I had no need to go buy more, I have some sitting on top of the fridge.

Yeah they are there own country so it's irrelevant to a local topic, have no idea how the milk producers are doing here but I'm guessing the reasons for backlash are primarily due to campaigns like the above and the increasing plantmilk sales in general.

gozunda · 07-03-2018 12:32pm

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

That's not really got anything to do with any of the points being made, nobody is saying that people don't buy milk. The only brands that are generally sold out are the Tesco ones as I said, as they cost so little which you may have misunderstood as it's not so clearly written. I've barely been able to buy their unsweetened soy milk for months and it's rather annoying but in a good way I guess. The reason many we won't rush to buy them is also that it is longlife, I had no need to go buy more, I have some sitting on top of the fridge.

Yeah they are there own country so it's irrelevant to a local topic, have no idea how the milk producers are doing here but I'm guessing the reasons for backlash are primarily due to campaigns like the above and the increasing plantmilk sales in general.

I didn't say they did. What i was saying is that ordinary milk sales are certainly not going down by the demand shown and wasnt only talking about Tesco either but certainly my local Tesco have a range of plant based alternatives such as their own stuff & Alpro and others... I think outside of the big cities (even with those silly billboards) not so many people buy this stuff...

To be honest I don't see the 'backlash' you talk about. Dairy products as regular every day products are promoted / advertised just as much as other fresh products imo.

But ya I'm personally not fan of long life foods...

Tar.Aldarion · 07-03-2018 12:52pm

I edited that first bit as it seems a bit aggressive. Demand can go down with demand still being high. Demand can even go up but the industry know that it should have gone up much more and not be happy with the limited increase (eg population increase). Demand has reduced in the US for 60 years and is around 7 times less per capita now but demand is still very high. Even if milk consumption is going down in Ireland it would still be in the order of magnitude of millions of litres per week. This can still affect the milik industry badly for individual farmers however. A litre of plantbased milk sold is pretty much one litre of dairy milk not sold which may affect some people who complain to the council to do something.

I'm from a farmland area and our local shops have as good a range as Dublin however I have no real way of knowing how much sells apart from that indicator. Regarding the backlash, in the last year there is a marked increase of advertisement which is a lot of added money, even a popup dairy store in the middle of Dublin, rugby players being brand ambassadors and buses being platered with advertisements. I'd never notice these things before and as others are intimating the same it seems plausible that it's accurate. It could be the dairy industry trying to catch up with the rest of the world either and realise that advertisement is important, in an industry where it is the defacto choice for so long that can be hard to realise.

gozunda · 07-03-2018 4:30pm

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

I edited that first bit as it seems a bit aggressive. Demand can go down with demand still being high. Demand can even go up but the industry know that it should have gone up much more and not be happy with the limited increase (eg population increase). Demand has reduced in the US for 60 years and is around 7 times less per capita now but demand is still very high. Even if milk consumption is going down in Ireland it would still be in the order of magnitude of millions of litres per week. This can still affect the milik industry badly for individual farmers however. A litre of plantbased milk sold is pretty much one litre of dairy milk not sold which may affect some people who complain to the council to do something...

Hey no problem. Tbh I knew not to take it as that - as that wouldn't be your usual style of posting imo

.

Back to the topic in hand. Again rather than guesstimating - I believe there would need to be some academic (independent) studies to indicate whether there are any observable statistically significant changes in the supply and demand for milk and / or plant based products and IF there it is possible to identify any correlation and causation within those sectors. Without that all this is just anecdotal wiff waff- and I include my own amateur observations with that.

Worth noting that the Irish dairy sector is not solely dependent on the national market. Billions of euro worth of dairy ingredients and products are exported each year to destinations worldwide

I think it is also not important not to link fairly normal / standard advertising with what some would jump at - as a 'backlash'. Although I would agree that advertising is much more proactive and innovative than ever before right across the board - for all types of products and consumables.

Howevet the billboards campaign imo is skating too far at the extreme end of the Ice Rink to be able to draw any worthwhile conclusions from it.

Again I think we need to leave out the US out of this - as it's markets and product demand sectors do not approximate Irish production or market conditions and afaik adds nothing to the overall issue than giving space for some rather vague comparisons.

Edit: Just checked on the Central Statistic Office figures and milk production was up by over 9% in 2017. For the same year butter production was up almost 14%

Milk producers generally sign contracts which mean that the milk processors agree to buy all milk produced so some variation in fresh milk sales is not going to affect the overall milik industry one way or the other for individual farmers

07-03-2018 9:14pm

This guy isn’t happy that only 98% of Britain enjoy dairy products and he’s very concerned about celebrity vegans.

Hope I’ve linked this properly.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-41713987

rubadub · 07-03-2018 9:36pm

I guess already mentioned
http://www.newstalk.com/Dairyfree-vegan-friendly-Baileys-coming-to-Irish-shelves

gozunda · 07-03-2018 10:15pm

rubadub wrote: »

I guess already mentioned
http://www.newstalk.com/Dairyfree-vegan-friendly-Baileys-coming-to-Irish-shelves

To be called "Bailey's Almande" ...

The article details that

The Baileys story began in Dublin in 1974.
David Dand had a vision for something new, and began his mission to create the Baileys recipe with a blend of two Irish ingredients: dairy cream and whiskey.
Baileys says "every single drop" of its cream is supplied by small, local Irish family farms.
Each year, 38,000 top-bred Irish dairy cows - known to us as the Baileys Ladies - produce over 220 million litres of fresh cream specifically for the creation of Baileys.

The article doesn't seem to detail what the ingredients actually are in this new product but going from the name I would imagine 'Almonds" ? ...

Well that's anyone with a nut allergy out if that is the case and those with environmental concerns with almond monocrop plantations and food miles ...

08-03-2018 12:28am

gozunda wrote: »

To be called "Bailey's Almande" ...

The article details that

The article doesn't seem to detail what the ingredients actually are in this new product but going from the name I would imagine 'Almonds" ? ...

Well that's anyone with a nut allergy out if that is the case anyway and those with environmental concerns with almond monocrop plantations and food miles ...

Jaysus Gozunda you’re some man for cherry picking and not understanding the bigger picture.

It makes it impossible to interact with you and I’m not surprised (and hopeful) that you’re not given any oxygen on this forum as time goes on.

Thankfully not all the other farmers see things as you do.

gozunda · 08-03-2018 8:28am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Jaysus Gozunda you’re some man for cherry picking and not understanding the bigger picture.

It makes it impossible to interact with you and I’m not surprised (and hopeful) that you’re not given any oxygen on this forum as time goes on.

Thankfully not all the other farmers see things as you do.

With respect Klopparama- That is the BIGGER PICTURE. The discussion at hand is the dairy / plant based milk industries. So yes the post is to point and not picking cherries (sic). The endless sniping is getting tiresome. See your first and subsequent posts directed at me in this thread ... :mad:

And as much as I hate when posters attack the poster and not the post - but I have to say so far your interactions imo have been anything but constructive. I've already pointed this out. I try to be polite and give as much background and detail my posts as much as possible. I'm sorry if that does not suit you.

To paraphrase 'thankfully I know that not all other vegans see things as you do" ....

Tar.Aldrion wrote:

...environmentalism is a vital part of veganism as it maximizes the wellbeing of all of us on the planet. Anybody that lays the blame on others and not themselves also is not taking to heart the whole point of veganism - that we are no better than anybody else, every movement will have anger and outrage however it's never a reflection of the true meaning. I can understand that it is hard to see past that when people are threatening or trying to get a reaction.

Tar.Aldarion · 08-03-2018 10:13am

Deleted User wrote: »

Jaysus Gozunda you’re some man for cherry picking and not understanding the bigger picture.

It makes it impossible to interact with you and I’m not surprised (and hopeful) that you’re not given any oxygen on this forum as time goes on.

Thankfully not all the other farmers see things as you do.

klopparama do not post like this about another user again, you are free to discuss the content of their posts and not them.

If you have a problem with a particular post in future then please report it, do not call out a user on a thread.

08-03-2018 11:27am

gozunda wrote: »

With respect Klopparama- That is the BIGGER PICTURE. The discussion at hand is the dairy / plant based milk industries. So yes the post is to point and not picking cherries (sic). The endless sniping is getting tiresome. See your first and subsequent posts directed at me in this thread ... :mad:

And as much as I hate when posters attack the poster and not the post - but I have to say so far your interactions imo have been anything but constructive. I've already pointed this out. I try to be polite and give as much background and detail my posts as much as possible. I'm sorry if that does not suit you.

To paraphrase 'thankfully I know that not all other vegans see things as you do" ....

Ah I just find it very hard to follow what you’re saying is all. Could very well be my lack of ability to comprehend your points.

On topic though - it’s great to see the amount of people switching to plant based milk. There’s a good chance that what people have seen and learned over the last few years (difficult previously because of the privacy that’s been afforded to ‘farming’) has led to this change.

With the evidence showing that consuming cows milk, which should be used to fatten calves, is unhealthy for humans and indeed the consumption of dairy in general leading to weight gain and it’s cancer causing ability then it’s easier to understand the change.

Isn’t it weird that some humans think it’s normal to consume the milk from a cow but are repulsed at the idea of drinking cats milk or dogs milk or even a donkeys milk. I don’t see the difference.

Thankfully people are making a change and some have stopped lazily following the governments suggestions for a healthy lifestyle.

Hopefully this change and a move away from dairy can benefit the health of a nation.

Tar.Aldarion · 08-03-2018 12:40pm

btw my main gripe with baileys almande is that you can get it for £10 in asda and it's €25 in Dunnes!

gozunda · 08-03-2018 1:18pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Ah I just find it very hard to follow what you’re saying is all. Could very well be my lack of ability to comprehend your points.

On topic though - it’s great to see the amount of people switching to plant based milk. There’s a good chance that what people have seen and learned over the last few years (difficult previously because of the privacy that’s been afforded to ‘farming’) has led to this change.

With the evidence showing that consuming cows milk, which should be used to fatten calves, is unhealthy for humans and indeed the consumption of dairy in general leading to weight gain and it’s cancer causing ability then it’s easier to understand the change.

Thankfully people are making a change and some have stopped lazily following the governments suggestions for a healthy lifestyle.

Hopefully this change and a move away from dairy can benefit the health of a nation.

I will take that at face value. Thanks.

People may or may not choose to drink milk etc for different and varied reasons- that is a moot point. In Ireland a large percentage of people live in rural areas and a many people are involved in agriculture or who have extended family that are. 'Farming' in rural areas is anything other than afforded 'privacy imo - with agriculture being highly regulated and inspected.

Most of the 'evidence" available showing that such things 'are bad' for you is at best slightly suspect and many those studies are disputed. There are many equally strident studies for the exact opposite. I take the lot with a good bucket of salt tbh

However reading peer reviewed articles from a range of independent studies indicate that a diet based on a selection of natural foods eaten in moderation is most frequently put forward as a the healthiest type of diet for humans. The corollary of that is that a healthy diet should include as few as possible of highly processed foods and drinks.

It remains that most people in Europe are not in fact lactose intolerant. Human evolution and resulting lactase persistence shows that distribution of the those who are able to consume dairy products without issue is over 50 percent of the population in the south east of Europe to 89 to 96 percent in the north west of Europe. It is also estimated thst up to 100% of Irish people have the genetic ability to tolerate lactose and benefit from consuming dairy products.

https://bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2148-10-36

Our high percentage of lactose tolerance is opined as coming from the fact that irish people's have been consuming dairy products as a significant part of their diet both historically and contemporaneously and reply on dairying as an important foodstuff due to our difficult topography and wet climate which favours grass growth over most other forms of agriculture.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Isn’t it weird that some humans think it’s normal to consume the milk from a cow but are repulsed at the idea of drinking cats milk or dogs milk or even a donkeys milk. I don’t see the difference.

I can understand a person not liking milk or indeed being intolerant of it - but bad science and / or non independent studies or supposition do not help the argument imo.

Seriously have you ever tried to milk a cat? Or even a dog? In general humans and other meat eaters tend not to include other species of meat eaters as part of their regular food supply as there is a biological drive away from the transfer of protein related diseases between these species. Now that said some cultures do consume products from other meat eating species but generally this is frowned upon for biological reasons and sometimes related to cultural and religious prohibitions.

And yes in some countries Asses milk is quite common. Though I dont think we have that many Asses here tbh... There are also significant differences in the chemical make up of milk between species. So yes there is quite a difference.

I'll just leave this here ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VatXYvrtF8

08-03-2018 8:01pm

Big post so I didn’t want to reply but on this -

‘Most of the 'evidence" available showing that such things 'are bad' for you is at best slightly suspect and many those studies are disputed. There are many equally strident studies for the exact opposite. I take the lot with a good bucket of salt tbh’

It’s not ‘evidence’ it’s evidence.

The tobacco industry paid ‘scientists’ to dispute the findings on tobacco (that it was cancer causing) for a long time to confuse the consumer.

gozunda · 08-03-2018 8:34pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Big post so I didn’t want to reply but on this -

‘Most of the 'evidence" available showing that such things 'are bad' for you is at best slightly suspect and many those studies are disputed. There are many equally strident studies for the exact opposite. I take the lot with a good bucket of salt tbh’"

It’s not ‘evidence’ it’s evidence.

The tobacco industry paid ‘scientists’ to dispute the findings on tobacco (that it was cancer causing) for a long time to confuse the consumer.

I was referring to all research undertaken by vested interests. Vested interests can be found everywhere - not only in the tobacco industry .

As I said this is relevant to both sides of any argument

For every claim of evidence

There are many equally strident studies (proving) the exact opposite. I take the lot with a good bucket of salt tbh’

This is where it is necessary to put on sceptical goggles. Otherwise discussions simply descend into a game of snap ...

Here are two articles as an example of this* ...
see: https://africacheck.org/reports/dairy-products-increase-risk-cancer-verdict/

http://www.breastcancer.org/research-news/soy-may-turn-on-genes-linked-to-cancer

*Please note I am not presenting that the studies are correct or otherwise - just an example of conflicting 'evidence

08-03-2018 9:46pm

gozunda wrote: »

I was referring to all research undertaken by vested interests. Vested interests can be found everywhere - not only in the tobacco industry .

As I said this is relevant to both sides of any argument

For every claim of evidence

This is where it is necessary to put on sceptical goggles. Otherwise discussions simply descend into a game of snap ...

Here are two articles as an example of this..
see: https://africacheck.org/reports/dairy-products-increase-risk-cancer-verdict/

http://www.breastcancer.org/research-news/soy-may-turn-on-genes-linked-to-cancer

Please note I am not presenting that the claims are correct or otherwise - just an example of conflicting 'evidence

And yes I agree ‘not only in the tobacco industry’ but I was using that as an example of vested interest and comparing it to the meat and dairy industry because the same thing is happening.

For every claim of evidence there’ll always be a counter claim. It’s the validity of the claim that matters. Sure some people think we haven’t been on the moon. Sometimes it’s easier to cut through the BS especially when it’s obviously nonsensical.

The evidence that meat and dairy is harmful to humans is pretty conclusive and accepted by most reasonable people. Slowly but surely more people are becoming aware.

gozunda · 08-03-2018 10:46pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And yes I agree ‘not only in the tobacco industry’ but I was using that as an example of vested interest and comparing it to the meat and dairy industry because the same thing is happening.

Yet vested interests can also be found both inside and outside industry. Pressure groups or even religous groups may also have vested interests in presenting data to prove or highlight their own beliefs or interests. Identifying which evidence comes from relevant vested interests is not always easy. However if you are pointing out that mainly large wealthy industries engage in this practise - then it is just as valid to claim that the soya industry also qualifies as a vested interest in this instance.

klopparama wrote:

For every claim of evidence there’ll always be a counter claim. It’s the validity of the claim that matters. Sure some people think we haven’t been on the moon. Sometimes it’s easier to cut through the BS especially when it’s obviously nonsensical.

Btw how does anyone determine the 'validity' of a claim? And remember their is a clear difference between a 'claim' and independent reseach. Who decides what is 'nonsensical' - where for example you have two respected scientific papers which both give diametrically opposite results for the claim "that eating bananas causes cancer" vs "eating bananas cures cancer"?

The evidence that meat and dairy is harmful to humans is pretty conclusive and accepted by most reasonable people. Slowly but surely more people are becoming aware.

In my last post I presented the findings of two studies that "dairy products do not cause cancer " and that "soya causes cancer". That is an example of how easy it is to present research to support just about any viewpoint.

You are also making the mistake of making an appeal to "most reasonable people" - who are these people? Vegans? In Ireland it has been estimated that vegans make up perhaps only a very small proportion of the population. Are all the rest of the population 'unreasonable people' because they don't hold those views?

An important part of this is that he majority of studies examining the link between diet and disease are observational studies which actually use statistics to estimate the relationship between diet and the risk of developing specific diseases.

Observational studies cannot prove that a specific food causes a disease - only whether there is an observed statistical relationship between the diet and the disease in question.

With observational studies there are limitations and the findings have occasionally are shown as being false in controlled trials (which are higher quality studies).

08-03-2018 10:58pm

gozunda wrote: »

Yet vested interests can also be found both inside and outside industry. Pressure groups or even religous groups may also have vested interests in presenting data to prove or highlight their own beliefs or interests. Identifying which evidence comes from relevant vested interests is not always easy. It would be just as valid to claim that the soya industry is a vested interest in this instance.

Btw how does anyone determine the 'validity' of a claim? And remember their is a clear difference between a 'claim' and independent reseach. Who decides what is 'nonsensical' - where for example you have two respected scientific papers which both give diametrically opposite results for the claim "that eating bananas causes cancer" vs "eating bananas cures cancer"?

In my last post (where I gave links for two different studies examples) I presented the findings of two studies that "dairy products do not cause cancer " and that "soya causes cancer". That is an example of how easy it is to present research to support just about any viewpoint.

You are also making the mistake of making an appeal to "most reasonable people" - who are these people? Vegans? In Ireland it has been estimated that vegans make up perhaps only a very small proportion of the population. Are all the rest of the population 'unreasonable people' because they don't hold those views?

An important part of this is that he majority of studies examining the link between diet and disease are observational studies which actually use statistics to estimate the relationship between diet and the risk of developing specific diseases.

Observational studies cannot prove that a specific food causes a disease - only whether there is an observed statistical relationship between the diet and the disease in question.

With observational studies there are limitations and the findings have occasionally are shown as being false in controlled trials (which are higher quality studies).

I can’t respond to each point using ‘reply’ as don’t know how.

The truth usually outs. The vested interest usually comes from those with the most money to gain and spend.

I’m not making any mistakes. I never suggested vegans were the reasonable people.

Yes like people that smoke are more likely to get lung cancer. Just because some don’t it doesn’t make the statistical data any less relevant.

Have you read ‘the China study’ ,and if yes, what do you think of the information gathered and what do you think are the motives of the people behind it ? What do you think their vested interest might be ?

gozunda · 09-03-2018 12:14am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I can’t respond to each point using ‘reply’ as don’t know how.

The truth usually outs. The vested interest usually comes from those with the most money to gain and spend.

OK - "Who defines what the 'truth is? If you are pointing out that it is mainly large wealthy industries who engage in this practice - then it is just as valid to claim that the soya industry also qualifies as a vested interest in this instance or the Vatican or any potentially large wealthy movement or organisation.

klopparama wrote:

Im not making any mistakes. I never suggested vegans were the reasonable people.

I was attempting to determine who you though the 'reasonable' people you detailed were?

klopparama wrote:

Yes like people that smoke are more likely to get lung cancer. Just because some don’t it doesn’t make the statistical data any less relevant.

Yes that is observed cause and effect. But just because I claim that the earth is flat or because I persuade a large number of people that it is - does not make it so

klopparama wrote:

Have you read ‘the China study’ ,and if yes, what do you think of the information gathered and what do you think are the motives of the people behind it ? What do you think their vested interest might be ?

It's a book and people write books all the time. Some people even make decent amounts of money out of writing books - in this instance over one million copies were sold (as of 2013) and the book made the best seller lists there. Nice little earner there tbh.

I believe the basic premise is that modern diets of meat / dairy products / are not recommend and are indeed blamed for a whole host of 'modern' 'Western' diseases and health conditions such as heart disease etc etc.

It is of note that the author T. Colin Campbell (whose original background was vetinary) states he is not a vegan but believes in "the idea is that we should be consuming whole foods"

I would find fault with the idea that eating foods
"that contain any cholesterol above 0mg is unhealthy". Recent information I checked on the Harvard Medical School website details that "most of the cholesterol in our body is made by our liver - it doesn't come from cholesterol we eat and that the liver is stimulated to make cholesterol primarily by saturated fat and trans fat in our diet, not consumed dietary cholesterol"

The other big hole in this book in my opinion thst it ignores the fact that humans have been eating meat right through time since the begining of our evolution and dairy products for at least eight thousand years. So whilst we may be living longer - diseases such as heart disease are still killing us that have been around as long as humans have. Even Otzi the Iceman was found to have had atherosclerosis relating to heart disease

Initially, the atherosclerosis was a bit of a surprise, because much research has linked heart disease to the couch-potato lifestyle and calorie-rich foods of the modern world, Zink said. But in recent research, as scientists conducted CT scans on mummies from the Aleutian Islands to ancient Egypt, they realized that heart disease and atherosclerosis were prevalent throughout antiquity, in people who had dramatically different diets and lifestyles, he said.

"It really looks like the disease was already frequent in ancient times, so it's not a pure civilizational disease,"

See:
https://www.livescience.com/47114-otzi-had-heart-disease-genes.html

09-03-2018 12:42am

So you think eating dairy and meat meat is fine. I don’t.

Health has very little to do with it for me anyway. I was just pointing out why some may be shunning dairy and meat but there are other reasons too.

I can’t condone the imprisonment, torture and slaughter of sentient animals so I refuse to pay someone else to do it for me. It makes me happy not to financially support that behaviour.

You think Campbell wrote that book for money.

I don’t.

I’ve nothing else to say on it really.

The original question was about people moving from calves milk to plant based milk.

gozunda · 09-03-2018 1:05am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So you think eating dairy and meat meat is fine. I don’t.

Health has very little to do with it for me anyway. I was just pointing out why some may be shunning dairy and meat but there are other reasons too.
I can’t condone the imprisonment, torture and slaughter of sentient animals so I refuse to pay someone else to do it for me. It makes me happy not to financially support that behaviour.
You think Campbell wrote that book for money.
I don’t.
I’ve nothing else to say on it really.
The original question was about people moving from calves milk to plant based milk.

It's an exchange of views. That's all.

I appreciate there is more than one reason why some choose to go vegan. Tbh I think it's always best to stay with personal reasoning as throwing everything into the mix in an effort to disprove others views or otherwise can be detrimental overall. Ya you keep on repeating the same mantra about slaughter imprisonment. Reality as I've said is not like that as we do not have American style industrial farming as show in the mainstream vegan videos online. Life in the wild is no picnic whatsoever if looked at objectively tbh. But I do appreciate you don't wish to eat meat and that's fine. But yeah the Bailey's thing and dairy farms got a bit side tracked all right after that post.

I didnt go into Campbells reasoning too much really- however Campbell's book did make him a mint one way or the other and the reality is that the findings are now very out of date relative to the study which was undertaken in China. Interesting book all the same.

09-03-2018 1:37am

gozunda wrote: »

It's an exchange of views. That's all.

I appreciate there is more than one reason why some choose to go vegan. Tbh I think it's always best to stay with personal reasoning as throwing everything into the mix in an effort to disprove others views or proselytizing can be detrimental overall. Ya you keep on repeating the same mantra about slaughter imprisonment. Reality as I've said is not like that as we do not have American style industrial farming as show in the mainstream vegan videos online. Life in the wild is no picnic whatsoever if looked at objectively tbh. But I do appreciate you don't wish to eat meat and that's fine. But yeah the Bailey's thing and dairy farms got a bit side tracked all right after that post.

I didnt go into Campbells reasoning too much really- however Campbell's book did make him a mint one way or the other and the reality is that the findings are now very out of date relative to the study which was undertaken in China. Interesting book all the same.

The reality is that animals are imprisoned, tortured and slaughtered in every country that they are bred for human consumption. There’s no hiding behind ‘America is worse’ in my opinion.

I don’t get the ‘animals in the wild’ comments you make either. We are not wild animals. Why compare ourselves to wild animals ? I understand the difference and thank fcuk we are not wild as that looks a pretty harsh environment and I doubt I’d last long. Humans have been long removed from the survival of the fittest.

How are the findings in the China study very out of date now ?

gozunda · 09-03-2018 2:18am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The reality is that animals are imprisoned, tortured and slaughtered in every country that they are bred for human consumption. There’s no hiding behind ‘America is worse’ in my opinion.

That's your opinion - however I believe its not based on the farming reality in this country. You see I've seen those exact same words repeated on a number of websites. Its nearly as its repeating that without really knowing how animals actually spend their lives on farms here. Nearly all the vegan videos that are on youtube use US farming footage where animals are not free to eat grass or roam or do other things that most cows and sheep etc get to do here. Cows and sheep are generally well looked after and get to roam and graze and lie around if they wish. Are there exceptions? For sure. I get it you don't eat meat but the majority of people do and don't share any of those opinions. Do you think using the same is really the best way you can to explain your position?

I don’t get the ‘animals in the wild’ comments you make either. We are not wild animals. Why compare ourselves to wild animals ? I understand the difference and thank fcuk we are not wild as that looks a pretty harsh environment and I doubt I’d last long. Humans have been long removed from the survival of the fittest.

No not humans - I mean the animals which survive in the wild. Yes i agree it's a very harsh environment for wild animals as well. Do you agree with stoping wild animals slaughtering each other?

How are the findings in the China study very out of date now ?

Have you read the book yourself? What do you think of yer man not being a vegan?

09-03-2018 2:45am

gozunda wrote: »

That's your opinion - however I believe its not based on the farming reality in this country. You see I've seen those exact same words repeated on a number of websites. Its nearly as its repeating that without really knowing how animals actually spend their lives on farms here. Nearly all the vegan videos that are on youtube use US farming footage where animals are not free to eat grass or roam or do other things that most cows and sheep etc get to do here. Cows and sheep are generally well looked after and get to roam and graze and lie around if they wish. Are there exceptions? For sure. I get it you don't eat meat but the majority of people do and don't share any of those opinions. Do you think using the same is really the best way you can to explain your position?

No not humans - I mean the animals which survive in the wild. Yes i agree it's a very harsh environment for wild animals as well. Do you agree with stoping wild animals slaughtering each other?

Have you read the book yourself? What do you think of yer man not being a vegan?

Correct. It is my opinion and the concept is enough to be abhorrent to me. And I know very well how animals live in captivity so I’ve no idea why you think I don’t.

I don’t need to explain my position. I’m not doing anything. I’m not torturing and slaughtering animals for my own pleasure.

It’s none of my business what wild animals do. I couldn’t care less.

I am reading the China study but very slowly. It’s a lot of information and not something I can read as I would other books. I’m taking it slowly so I can absorb as much information as possible. I’ve re-read the chapter on casein and how it’s cancer causing and every time I read it I find something I didn’t get first time. I’ll be reading that book for months.

I’d no idea ‘yer man’ is not a vegan and again I couldn’t care less. It’s none of my business. I myself don’t like identify to ‘groups’ (other than LFC fans maybe) but as carnists are at pain to label me a vegan it’s hard to avoid. It’s also a handy reference for when I’m out socialising as it helps waiting staff understand my requests. I don’t like using it though. People seem to have a picture in their heads as to what one is. I find that funny too.

The Grapevine (OFF TOPIC CHAT) Part II

Comments